MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           5 September 2002  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001067045

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
  
APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that at the time of his discharge he was young and immature, that his father left his mother with four children to raise and all he did was worry about home.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant was inducted on 14 February 1966.  He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was transferred to Fort Eustis, Virginia, for duty as a supply handler.

On 29 June 1966, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 13 June 1966 to 13 June 1966.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty. 

On 12 August 1966, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 5 July 1966 to 12 July 1966.  He was sentenced to forfeit $40 pay for one month.  On 16 August 1966, the convening authority approved the sentence.  

On 5 December 1966, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being AWOL from 6 September 1966 to 14 September 1966 and from 
23 October 1966 to 3 November 1966.  He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 30 days, to forfeit $50 pay per one month and to be reduced to E-1.  On 7 December 1966, the convening authority approved the sentence but suspended the sentence to confinement for one month.  The suspended portion of the sentence to confinement was vacated. 

On 22 February 1967, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 3 January 1967 to 11 January 1967.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty. 

On 7 September 1967, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being AWOL from 24 April 1967 to 12 August 1967.  He was sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 6 months and to forfeit $60 pay per month for 
6 months.  On 28 September 1967, the convening authority approved the sentence.

The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation on 22 November 1967 and was diagnosed with an inadequate personality with passive dependent traits.  The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant be separated from the service under the appropriate administrative regulation.

On 17 January 1968, the applicant underwent a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111. 

On 19 January 1968, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, for unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and representation by counsel.  He also elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.  

On 19 January 1968, the applicant’s unit commander initiated a recommendation to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-212 for unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  He cited the applicant’s numerous AWOL periods and opined that the applicant lacked motivation for continued service.

The intermediate commander concurred with the recommendation for separation.

On 26 January 1968, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness and directed that the applicant be furnished an undesirable discharge.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 2 February 1968 for unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  He had served 9 months and 20 days of total active service with 395 days lost time due to AWOL and confinement. 

There is no indication in the available records which show the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set for the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6a(1) of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities were subject to separation for unfitness.  An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board notes that the applicant was almost 22 years of age at the time of his induction. 

2.  The Board noted the applicant’s claim of family problems.  However, these matters are not grounds for upgrading his discharge.  

3.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. 

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

5.  The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included two nonjudicial punishments, two summary court-martial convictions, one special court-martial conviction and 395 days of lost time and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  The Board also determined that his military record was not satisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge or a general discharge.

6.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

7.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

CLA____  MHM____  JTM_____  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001067045	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020905	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19680202	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-212  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unfitness due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.